Follow Sunlit Uplands by E-Mail

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Obama’s October Surprise – Exposed by Benghazi?

As a veteran investigator, I’ve learned
long ago to shed my blinders and look at the larger picture, or look at
all of the dots to see if any might connect. In the realm of politics,
it also seems reasonable to consider the quote attributed to Joseph
Kennedy in 1960: “There are no accidents in politics.” Furthermore, it
is important to reconstruct the actions of all suspects, or in this
case, elected officials, to determine “motives and means” amid a hefty
dose of theatrical diversions that would make an accomplished magician
envious.

October surprise

The concept of an “October surprise,” or
a news event with significant potential to influence the presidential
election arose exactly forty years ago, when former National Security
Adviser Henry Kissinger under then President Richard Nixon announced
that an end of the Vietnam War was at hand. Applied to the present day,
what one comparable announcement could be made that would have the same
impact in scope and influence favoring the incumbent Obama. Given all
that we know, let’s postulate that it would be an agreement hammered out
between Obama and Iran where Iran would agree to halt its nuclear
ambitions. That certainly would appear to be an accomplishment worthy of
domestic and international praise, in spite of any inherent fragility.

In the shadow of the events in Benghazi, let’s connect a few dots to see where they take us.

The Earl Warren of 2012

Barack Obama promised Americans that he
is committed to investigate any intelligence and security failures in
Libya. To this end, it was announced in the Federal Register
on October 4, 2012 that Thomas Pickering would be the chairman of the
U.S. State Department’s Accountability Review Board, a commission
charged with investigating the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three
other Americans on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi. But who is Thomas
Pickering and why was he selected to head the investigation?

Summoning the ghost of Earl Warren,
Pickering appears to be a logical choice to select if one were to have
an interest in controlling the public disclosure. Pickering, it appears,
has quite a cozy history with Iran as extensively documented by
Matthew Vadum in his October 24, 2012 report.

The magic act continues

While the magician on stage activated
the theatrical fog and diverted everyone’s attention elsewhere, the
activities behind the scenes were in full swing. Concurrent with the
appointment of Pickering to throttle the outflow of information about
Benghazi, Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Iranian born Senior Advisor, jetted
to the nation of Qatar. Although her activities were concealed by the
magician’s accomplice – the dutiful Western media – it was reported by
the Asia Times last week that Jarrett met with senior Iranian officials to negotiate a deal pertaining to Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions.

Talks about any such meetings or
potential deal were quickly denied by the White House. What else would
one expect, as premature disclosure would certainly ruin the outcome of
the magic trick being performed right before our eyes.

A break in the magician’s fog

While the creation of an October
surprise of this nature could be relegated to the historical dustbin of
speculation, it is here that a seemingly random series of dots – or
events – come into view and the magic trick becomes exposed to those
looking for the clues.

It was on July 31, 2012, about a month
before the September 11 attack in Benghazi that a mortar ripped into the
wall of the CIA occupied military intelligence building (research into
ownership suggests a possible UK connection), now apparently designated
as “the consulate in Benghazi.” The explosion did not cause any deaths
or injuries and consequently, it did not make many headlines.

It is here that I rely on my well-placed
intelligence source to help me understand the magic trick onstage.
According to my source, our intelligence operatives noticed something
unusual near that building. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent
were milling about, almost like they were inspecting the damage. It was
as if they were looking to see if the walls were reinforced, and
assessing the response to that facility. The next instant, they were
gone.

It was reported that the seven member contingent of the Red Crescent were inexplicably kidnapped by “armed men.”

Fast forward to October 6, 2012, about
the time when Valerie Jarrett was reportedly meeting with Iranian
officials in Qatar. The kidnapped Red Crescent delegation was suddenly,
inexplicably and unceremoniously released unharmed in Libya after 65 days in captivity.

Rumors inside the intelligence community
suggest that the Jarrett “October surprise” meetings with Iran were
contingent on the release of the Iranian Red Crescent workers.

Connecting the dots – exposing the magic trick

It is here that I needed to rely on my
intelligence source to assist me in seeing through the clouded world
stage. Do the dots connect?

Could it be that Obama’s “October
surprise” was to announce that an agreement had been reached with Iran,
that they would halt their nuclear ambitions much like the Kissinger
“peace is at hand” announcement? If so, and if Iran had any involvement
on a nation-state level in Benghazi, wouldn’t it seem logical that the
truth about the attacks needed to be managed without any such mention of
Iran? Who would be the best person to head such an investigation? And
if Iran was behind the pre-planned and sophisticated 9/11 murderous
attacks in Benghazi, could it be that the July 31, 2012 mortar attack
was a probe of that facility’s defenses in advance of a future attack?
That would explain the curious disappearance of the 7 member Iranian
“Red Crescent” team, and their equally mysterious reappearance,
unharmed, 65 days later.

This website is dedicated to a renewal of Christian culture. It is inspired by Sir Winston Churchill, a valiant defender of Christian civilization, who believed "we have a great treasure to guard; that the inheritance in our possession represents the prolonged achievement of the centuries." With Churchill, we believe that a "fraternal association" of the English-speaking peoples must "for their own safety and for the good of all walk together in majesty, in justice and in peace.”